2012+Danzl+v.+North+St+Paul


 * Prepared by: Kandace Campbell & Max Stieve**

**706 F.2d 813** **31 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1092,**   **31 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,584, 11 Ed. Law Rep. 159** **Agnes A. DANZL, Appellee,** **v.** **NORTH ST. PAUL-MAPLEWOOD-OAKDALE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT** **NO. 622; Dr. Carl Midjaas, individually and in his capacity** **as Director, Personnel and Management Services for North St.** **Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale Independent School District No. 622;** **Dr. Richard St. Germain, individually and in his capacity as** **Director of Secondary Education for North St.** **Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale Independent School District No. 622;** **North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale Independent School District** **No. 622 School Board; Bette Jayne Haak, individually and in** **her capacity as School Board member; T. Geron Bell,** **individually and in his capacity as School Board member;** **Bruce L. Beck, individually and in his capacity as School** **Board member; William Lester, individually and in his** **capacity as School Board member; G. Paul Sandberg,** **individually and in his capacity as School Board member;** **Charles W. Wiger, individually and in his capacity as School** **Board member; and Robert Hansen, individually and in his** **capacity as School Board member, Appellants.** **No. 82-1688.**   **United States Court of Appeals,** **Eighth Circuit.** **Submitted Dec. 13, 1982.** **Decided May 4, 1983.**
 * Background:** Agnes Danzl filed suit against North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale Independent School District. She claims that she was discriminated against because of her sex, which violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On August 21, 1979 a team of teachers interviewed the candidates, and picked Danzl and one other male candidate. Danzl was the favorite by all except the Director of Secondary Education, Richard St. Germain. On May 28, 1980, Danzl filed a complaint in federal district court.
 * Decision:** The district court ruled in favor of Agnes Danzl, and stated; “Based on the original trial record, the district court concluded that the school district's reasons for not hiring Danzl were ‘nothing more than pretexts and that the real motive underlying Dr. Danzl not being hired was due to sex-based discrimination.’” However, the school district filed an appeal, “urging that the district court erred in its findings of pretext and intentional discrimination.” The Eighth Circuit United States court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision.
 * Impact on Teaching:** This case deals with discrimination, a topic that has greatly changed our country over the past sixty-plus years. While in the classroom we have to address everyone equally and need to disregard their sex, race, sexual orientation, or any other aspect of them that can be discriminated against. Discrimination can be blown up into a huge nightmare for teachers or in the hiring process as this case dealt with. The school board was in the right, they followed all of the steps and chose the best candidate based on their ability and not on being male or female.
 * Quiz Question:** (T/F) the court ultimately in the end ruled in favor of the school district.